Amerika

Why “Bathroom Laws” Came About

Most people have no idea what goes on behind the scenes. For your average person, life means finding a job and a credit card, then finding a way to live. They never manage groups, deal with law or economics, or have to organize an institution to both not fail and deliver productive results.

Somehow, we expect these people to make decisions about things far beyond their competence. In the same way that workers are workers because they cannot be management owing to a skills and biological/genetic abilities deficit, voters are inherently ignorant about that which they vote on.

In this light, we can see why “bathroom laws” perplex voters. On a symbolic level, these are fought in terms of universal acceptance (Leftist good) versus maintaining biology and tradition (conservative good). Underneath lurks something more complex.

“Sally” (formerly Angus) goes to “her” (formerly his) local coffee shop and wants to use the bathroom. As is common in most small-to-medium-size stores — truly small stores have an unmarked single bathroom — there are two rooms, a Men’s Room and a Ladies’ Room.

Which should the business allow Sally to choose?

  • The Ladies’ Room. The unspoken ugly truth here is that transgenderism, even more so than homosexuality, correlates with weird and destructive behaviors, both to self and others. If Sally has one of these problems, and goes into the Ladies’ and ends up raping a small child, the store owner will be sued for negligence in allowing Sally into the Ladies’ Room.
  • The Men’s Room. If the business forces Sally to go into the room that corresponds to “her” (formerly his) genitals, then Sally can sue under a variety of Civil Rights statutes dating back to the Fourteenth Amendment (and corresponding Civil Rights Acts of 1866, 1957, and 1964) which say she is being treated unequally.

Here we have a quandary because no matter which the business chooses, it is going to get sued. Assuming that it does not have the space and money to add another bathroom, which most business will not have, it faces another ugly choice.

It can remove the gender labels from the bathrooms, but that breaks down if the bathroom is designed for more than one person. You end up with a mixed crowd in both bathrooms, and that is not what John and Julia Suburbanite want when they take their kids out to restaurants, bookstores, and libraries.

It can designate one bathroom as “men and other,” figuring that men will fight off assailants better, but then young boys — the most common victims of pedophilia — will be at risk.

No matter what it does, this business is screwed, so it turns to the traditional source of legal insulation, the regulation. Being in compliance with regulations serves as a powerful defense against negligence and civil rights suits.

Normal Americans do not want to make these decisions because, if you ask them after a few glasses of wine in a place where they think they are not being recorded, they will admit that when they go out with their families, they do not want to encounter homosexuals or transgenders.

They want their kids to be safe, and people who are anomalous represent a threat, whether foreigners or sexual non-conformists.

In fact, if you add a couple more glasses of wine, they might admit that they want to live with people like them, which means similar in religion, ethnicity, culture, race, sexuality, and moral standards. That even extends to politics as this point, since the Left made politics into morality.

When you look at this problem from the point of view of history, it becomes clear that we are separating into two nations. One wants the symbolic victory of equality in having transgenders use “whatever bathroom they choose,” and the other wants the realistic outlook that non-conformists need to be far away from normal, healthy families that are typically the victims of the weird, broken, dysfunctional, and bizarre.

If we look at this from the broader view of history, the biological imperative to survive represents normalcy and Leftist the deviation that says that symbolic acts are more important than reality, sort of like religious fundamentalists do, but in a secular context.

As The Enlightenment™ ends, we are turning back toward the realist. We do not wish ill on transgenders (often called “transtrenders” because of the disproportionate popularity of this issue in Leftist media) but nor do we want them near us.

It seems cruel until you realize that our way is historically proven to work, and everything else is conjecture, so we the “control group” want to be separated from the speculative ways of life. Maybe those will turn out well, and maybe not. We want them to do that on their own.

Add this to your snapshots of the West before civil war tears it apart yet again.

Tags: , , , ,

|
Share on FacebookShare on RedditTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedIn

Recommended Reading